{"id":2108,"date":"2006-02-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-02-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-bala-murugan-vs-the-inspector-general-of-police-on-15-february-2006"},"modified":"2014-07-05T20:55:31","modified_gmt":"2014-07-05T15:25:31","slug":"b-bala-murugan-vs-the-inspector-general-of-police-on-15-february-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-bala-murugan-vs-the-inspector-general-of-police-on-15-february-2006","title":{"rendered":"B. Bala Murugan vs The Inspector General Of Police on 15 February, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
B. Bala Murugan vs The Inspector General Of Police on 15 February, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDated:  15\/02\/2006\n\nCoram\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR\n\nWrit petition No.27019 of 2005\n\nB.  Bala Murugan                       ...                     Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.     The Inspector General of Police,\n        Law and Order,  South Zone,\n        Madurai  2.\n\n2.      The Deputy Inspector General of Police,\n        Madurai Range, Madurai.\n\n3.      The Superintendent of Police,\n        Madurai District, Madurai.      ...                     Respondents\n\n\n        This Writ  petition  came  to  be  numbered  by  way  of  transfer  of\nO.A.No.3824 of 2002 from the file of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with a\nprayer  to  call  for  the  records  of  the  respondents especially the third\nrespondent in his proceedings made in P.R.51\/F1\/2000  under  Rule  3(b)  dated\n6.7.2000   as   confirmed   by   the  second  respondent  on  appeal  made  in\nC.No.A3\/Appeal-56\/2000 dated 7.1.2001 and further confirmed on review  by  the\nfirst  respondent made in C.N.A1\/915\/2001 P.R.Review 76 \/2001, dated 10.3.2002\nand quash the same as null and void,  illegal  and  invalid  and  consequently\ndirect  the  respondents  to regularise the petitioner's scale after re-fixing\nhis scale of pay including the increments so far withheld placing him eligible\nfor the difference in the salary arrears with  all  allowances  and  attendant\nbenefits.\n\nFor Petitioner :       Mr.A.Amalraj\n\nFor Respondents        :       Mrs.D.Malarvizhi,\n                        Government Advocate\n\n:O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
        In  this  writ  petition,  the punishment of reduction in pay by three
\nstages for three years with cumulative effect, imposed on  the  petitioner  by
\nthe  third  respondent  in his proceedings dated 6.7.2000, as confirmed by the
\nsecond respondent in appeal on 7.1.2001 and further  confirmed  in  review  on
\n10.3.2002, is challenged.\n<\/p>\n
        2.      The facts of the case as stated in the affidavit are as under,\n<\/p>\n
        (a)     Petitioner  joined  in service as Police Constable Grade-II on
\n17.1.1986 and  he  was  initially  posted  at  Madurai  Rural  Armed  Reserve.
\nSubsequently  he was transferred to Bodi Taluk Police Station during December,
\n1992; to Tirupparamkundram Police Station during February, 19 94;  Usilampatti
\nProhibition  and  Enforcement  Wing during July, 1994; and to Chekkanur Police
\nstation during July, 1995.  He was promoted as  Grade-I  Police  Constable  on
\n1.8.1998  and  served  in various stations and in April 2001 he was working in
\nKoodalputhur Police Station.  Petitioner states that he got a clean record  of
\nservice  and  was  awarded  with  nine  rewards for his honesty, integrity and
\nefficiency.\n<\/p>\n
        (b)     It is the case of the petitioner that he  was  issued  with  a
\ncharge  memo  dated  30.3.2000  on  the  allegation  that  on  13.3.2000 while
\nreturning home after finishing Jallikattu guard duty within the  Vikramangalam
\nPolice  Station  limits,  petitioner made search of the Ambassador Car bearing
\nregistration No.TNI 6886 during night hours along with another Grade-I PC.886,
\non his own accord and  without  permission  from  his  superior  officers  and
\nchecked  the  travellers Pushpam, aged about 35 years, wife of Malaichamy; and
\nVennila, wife of Santhanam, without any instructions  from  superior  officers
\nand received Rs.470\/- from them without bringing them to the Police Station.\n<\/p>\n
        (c)     Petitioner submitted his explanation stating that on 13.3.2000
\nat about  9.30  p.m.  while he was at Usilampatti bus stand, there was a crowd
\nshouting in the bus stand and the petitioner, though was not on duty, enquired
\nthe reasons and came to know that one Pushpam and three of her relatives  came
\nfrom  Madurai  to  Usilampatti  during odd hours after attending a function at
\nMadurai and as there was wordy quarrel between them in respect of taxi charges
\nto proceed  to  their  village,  he,  as  a  duty  conscience  person  and  on
\nhumanitarian ground, intervened and pacified them, apart from arranging a taxi
\nfor  them  to  proceed to their village and the petitioner was not aware about
\nwhat had happened thereafter and that he went to his village  along  with  the
\nother constable  viz.,  T.S.Manikandan.    Petitioner  further  stated that no
\ncomplaint was made against him either by the said Pushpam or Vennila as to the
\nalleged receipt of Rs.470\/- by the petitioner, but in  fact,  Pushpam  made  a
\ncomplaint  against  one  Ramar,  Taxi  Driver,  and  in that regard a case was
\nregistered in Crime No.214 of 2000 on 14.3.2000 and even in the said complaint
\nno allegation was made against the petitioner.  According to  the  petitioner,
\nas  the charge memo was issued based on no complaint, the same is improper and
\nillegal.  The case alleged by the petitioner is that the Inspector of  Police,
\nUsilampatti,  on  his  own  accord  recorded statements from the witnesses and
\nissued report against the petitioner and other constable.\n<\/p>\n
        (d)     Petitioner further states that an enquiry was conducted by the
\nDeputy Superintendent of Police, Usilampatti and he submitted  enquiry  report
\ndated  29.5.2000  placing reliance only on the evidence of PW-5, the Inspector
\nof Police, who allegedly recorded  the  statement  of  the  complainant  viz.,
\nPushpam.   But,  the petitioner states, in the cross examination PW-1 Pushmpam
\ncategorically denied petitioner’s role stating  that  he  did  not  demand  or
\nreceive  any  money  and  no complaint or statement was made by her before the
\nInspector of Police, but she was directed to sign in a statement without  even
\ndisclosing the  contents  therein.   Similar was the answer given during cross
\nexamination by Pws.2 to 4.  Hence, the petitioner submitted that  the  Enquiry
\nOfficer’s  finding  is  solely  based on the evidence of PW-5 the Inspector of
\nPolice, who has no knowledge about the incident and requested to exonerate him
\nfrom the charges.\n<\/p>\n
        (e)     However,  the  third  respondent  in  his  proceedings   dated
\n6.7.2000 accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer and imposed the punishment
\nof  reduction  in  pay by three stages for three years with cumulative effect,
\nholding that all the prosecution witnesses narrated the incident at  the  time
\nof preliminary  enquiry, but turned hostile during oral enquiry.  It is stated
\nin the order that strict proof of the guilt is necessary only in the  criminal
\nproceedings  and not in the departmental proceedings in which preponderance of
\nprobabilities is sufficient.  The petitioner preferred an  appeal  before  the
\nsecond  respondent,  who  also passed an order without any reason and rejected
\nthe appeal by order dated 7.1.2001 and the  same  was  challenged  before  the
\nfirst  respondent  by  way of review petition, which was also rejected without
\nany  speaking  order  and  without  considering  the  points  raised  by   the
\npetitioner.  Hence the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
        3.      The  respondents  filed  a  counter  affidavit  in which it is
\nstated that the petitioner was maintaining a clean record of service prior  to
\nthe award  of  punishment now imposed.  It is further stated that PW-1 to PW-4
\nhave made cogent statements at the first instance during preliminary  enquiry,
\nbut  turned  hostile  and  deposed  against  the prosecution only during final
\nenquiry and hence  the  Enquiry  Officer  placed  reliance  on  their  earlier
\nstatements and  held  the  charge  as  proved.    Therefore,  according to the
\nrespondents, there is no illegality in relying the earlier statements  of  the
\nwitnesses and consequently no interference is called for in the impugned order
\nof punishment.\n<\/p>\n
        4.      The  learned  counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that
\nthe punishment of reduction of pay  by  three  stages  for  three  years  with
\ncumulative  effect  was  imposed on the petitioner solely based on the earlier
\nstatements said to have been made before the Inspector of Police, but the same
\nwitnesses turned hostile during their oral enquiry and hence the  same  cannot
\nbe relied on to prove the alleged charge against the petitioner.  According to
\nthe  learned  counsel,  the  conclusion  arrived at by the Enquiry Officer and
\nDisciplinary Authority is contrary to the law  laid  down  by  the  Honourable
\nSupreme  Court  and  this  Court,  as  there is no legal evidence to prove the
\nalleged charge against the  petitioner  and  therefore  the  findings  of  the
\nEnquiry  Officer  is  to  be  treated  as  perverse as the same is based on no
\nevidence.  The learned counsel further argued that  it  is  the  duty  of  the
\nappellate  authority and reviewing authority to consider the grounds raised in
\nthe appeal petition\/Review petition and  they  are  expected  to  pass  orders
\nstating  reasons,  since  their  orders  are  subject to judicial scrutiny and
\nnon-consideration of the points  by  the  appellate  authority  and  reviewing
\nauthority  is in violation of the statutory rules and against the decisions of
\nthe Honourable Supreme Court and this Court.    The  learned  Counsel  further
\nsubmits  that  the  criminal  case registered against the Taxi Driver Ramar in
\nCrime No.214\/2000 of Usilampatti Police Station under section 376 of  IPC  was
\nreferred  as mistake of fact and a report to that effect was also filed before
\nthe Second Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai.  The learned  counsel  for  the
\npetitioner  placed  reliance  on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in
\n(200 4) 10 SCC 87 (Union of India v.   Mohd.    Ibrahim)<\/a>  in  support  of  his
\ncontentions.\n<\/p>\n
        5.      The learned Government Advocate argued that the charge against
\nthe  petitioner  having  been  found proved during the enquiry, the punishment
\norder issued against  the  petitioner  is  legally  valid  and  the  appellate
\nauthority  and  the  reviewing  authority  merely confirmed the said order and
\ntherefore there  is  no  illegality  or  impropriety  in  the  orders  of  the
\nrespondents and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
        6.      I have heard the rival submissions made by the learned counsel
\nappearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate.\n<\/p>\n
        7.      In  the  decision reported in (2004) 10 SCC 87 (Union of India
\nv.  Mohd.    Ibrahim)  the  Honourable  Supreme  Court<\/a>  in   the   facts   and
\ncircumstances  of  the  case  before  it  held that the order of dismissal was
\nvitiated as the findings have been based on consideration of statement of  the
\npersons  examined  during  the  preliminary  enquiry and for the said fact the
\nTribunal set aside the order of dismissal which was upheld by the  High  Court
\nand there is no error in the said order setting aside the dismissal order.\n<\/p>\n
        8.      A  Division  Bench  of  this Court by order dated 22.2.2005 in
\nW.P.  Nos.29862 & 32581 of 2002  (The  Deputy  Inspector  General  of  Police,
\nVillupuram and  others v.  V.Vanniaperumal and others) upheld the order of the
\nTribunal which set aside the order of removal from service.  Paragraphs 6  and
\n8 of the judgment can be usefully referred to, which reads thus,<\/p>\n
        “6.     We  have  carefully  considered the relevant materials and the
\nrival contentions.  We have already referred to the charges  levelled  against
\nthe applicants.    It  is also relevant to note that apart from the applicants
\ntwo more officers have also been implicated along with them.    They  are  one
\nSattanathan, Sub-Inspector  of  Police and Antony, Inspector of Police.  It is
\nbrought to our notice that Sattanathan is no more and  so  far  as  the  other
\nofficer Antony  is  concerned  lesser punishment has been imposed.  Now we are
\nconcerned with the charges levelled against both the applicants.  In the light
\nof the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal, we perused the  finding  of  the
\nEnquiry Officer.    It  is  not  in dispute that all the prosecution witnesses
\nexcept PW.3 , who is none other than the Deputy Superintendent of Police,  the
\nother  witnesses  viz.,  P.Ws.1,2,4  and  5  turned hostile before the Enquiry
\nOfficer and not supported their earlier  statement  made  at  the  preliminary
\nenquiry.   The  Enquiry  Officer  having  noted  the  above  aspect  curiously
\nsubmitted a report holding that all the three charges  levelled  against  them
\nare proved based on the preliminary enquiry.\n<\/p>\n
        7.      ………\n<\/p>\n
        8.      In  our  case,  we  have already referred to the fact that the
\nprosecution witnesses viz., P.Ws.1,2,4 and 5 turned hostile and not  supported
\ntheir preliminary  version.    However, the Enquiry Officer basing reliance on
\ntheir earlier statement in the preliminary enquiry found that all the  charges
\nlevelled against them are proved.  In the light of the decision of the Supreme
\nCourt  referred  to  above, after fullfledged enquiry was held the preliminary
\nenquiry had lost its importance.  Further, we find no substance or material to
\narrive at a conclusion that “since all the three counts  were  proved  by  the
\nprosecution  beyond reasonable doubts, convincingly, I agree with the findings
\nof the Enquiry Officer, …”.  We are satisfied that there is no  material  to
\narrive  at  such a conclusion by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, while
\npassing an order removing the applicants from service.  All these aspects have
\nbeen considered by the Tribunal in a proper manner and there is no  acceptable
\nmaterial or  evidence to take different view as that of the Tribunal.  We find
\nno merits in both the writ petitions.  Accordingly, they are  dismissed.    No
\ncosts.  Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are dismissed.”
\nThe said conclusion was arrived at by the Division Bench based on the decision
\nof  the  Honourable  Supreme  Court  reported  in  1997  I  SCC  299 (Narayana
\nDattatraya Ramteerthakhar v.  State of Maharashtra).<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
        9.      In the present case, it is admitted by  the  respondents  that
\nPWs.1  to  4  have  disclaimed their earlier statements and turned hostile and
\ndeposed against the prosecution, but the Enquiry Officer solely relying on the
\nearlier statements held the charge as proved.  Admittedly  PW-5  Inspector  of
\nPolice has  no  personal  knowledge  about  the alleged incident.  The earlier
\nstatements said to have been made before the 5th respondent  are  specifically
\ndenied by  Pws.1  to  4.   During cross examination also Pws.1 to 4 denied the
\ncontents of the statements said to have been  made  before  the  Inspector  of
\nPolice P.W.5.\n<\/p>\n
        10.     Taking  into  consideration all the above aspects, I am of the
\nconsidered view that the Enquiry  Officer  has  found  the  charge  as  proved
\nagainst  the  petitioner  on no evidence and the findings given by the Enquiry
\nOfficer as well as the Disciplinary Authority are perverse and  therefore  the
\npunishment imposed against him is unsustainable.\n<\/p>\n
        11.     The  appellate authority and the reviewing authority also have
\nnot considered the point in issue in this case and merely confirmed the  order
\nwithout  stating any reason and the said action of the appellate authority and
\nreviewing authority is also unsustainable as it is in violation of Rule 23  of
\nthe  Tamil  Nadu  Civil  Services  (Discipline  & Appeal) Rules, wherein it is
\nstated that the appellate authority shall consider whether the facts on  which
\nthe  order  was  passed  have  been established; whether the facts established
\nafford sufficient ground  for  taking  action;  and  whether  the  penalty  is
\nexcessive,  adequate  or  inadequate  and  pass  orders confirming, enhancing,
\nreducing, or  setting  aside  the  penalty;  or  remitting  the  case  to  the
\nauthority,  which  imposed  the  penalty  or  to any other authority with such
\ndirection as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.  It is  further
\nstated that the appellate authority shall make a speaking order.\n<\/p>\n
        12.     A  Division  Bench  of  this Court in the decision reported in
\n2004(3) Law Weekly 32 (M.Nagarajan & Others v.  The Registrar,  High  Court  &
\nAnother)<\/a>  considered  the  scope  of  Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services
\n(Discipline and Appeal) Rules and held that the said rule is a mandate  to  be
\nfollowed and the appellate authority shall give reasons and shall not pass any
\nnon-speaking order.    The  Division Bench in its judgment followed an earlier
\nDivision Bench decision of this Court reported in 1983 (2) MLJ 513 (Srinivasan
\nv.  Government of Tamil Nadu).<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
        13.     In the light of the principles  laid  down  in  the  decisions
\ncited  supra,  I  hold  that  the  impugned order of punishment dated 6.7.2000
\npassed against the petitioner, as confirmed  by  the  appellate  authority  by
\norder  dated  7.1.2001  and  reviewing authority by order dated 10.3.2 002, is
\nunsustainable and the same is set aside.  The writ petition is  allowed.    No
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
vr<\/p>\n
To\n<\/p>\n
1.      The Inspector General of Police,
\n        Law and Order, South Zone, Madurai  2.\n<\/p>\n
2.      The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
\n        Madurai Range, Madurai.\n<\/p>\n
3.      The Superintendent of Police,
\n        Madurai District, Madurai.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court B. Bala Murugan vs The Inspector General Of Police on 15 February, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 15\/02\/2006 Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR Writ petition No.27019 of 2005 B. Bala Murugan … Petitioner -Vs- 1. The Inspector General of Police, Law and Order, South Zone, Madurai […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2108","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nB. Bala Murugan vs The Inspector General Of Police on 15 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-bala-murugan-vs-the-inspector-general-of-police-on-15-february-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"B. Bala Murugan vs The Inspector General Of Police on 15 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-bala-murugan-vs-the-inspector-general-of-police-on-15-february-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-02-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-07-05T15:25:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-bala-murugan-vs-the-inspector-general-of-police-on-15-february-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-bala-murugan-vs-the-inspector-general-of-police-on-15-february-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"B. Bala Murugan vs The Inspector General Of Police on 15 February, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-07-05T15:25:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-bala-murugan-vs-the-inspector-general-of-police-on-15-february-2006\"},\"wordCount\":2339,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-bala-murugan-vs-the-inspector-general-of-police-on-15-february-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-bala-murugan-vs-the-inspector-general-of-police-on-15-february-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-bala-murugan-vs-the-inspector-general-of-police-on-15-february-2006\",\"name\":\"B. Bala Murugan vs The Inspector General Of Police on 15 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-07-05T15:25:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-bala-murugan-vs-the-inspector-general-of-police-on-15-february-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-bala-murugan-vs-the-inspector-general-of-police-on-15-february-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-bala-murugan-vs-the-inspector-general-of-police-on-15-february-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"B. Bala Murugan vs The Inspector General Of Police on 15 February, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"B. Bala Murugan vs The Inspector General Of Police on 15 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-bala-murugan-vs-the-inspector-general-of-police-on-15-february-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"B. Bala Murugan vs The Inspector General Of Police on 15 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-bala-murugan-vs-the-inspector-general-of-police-on-15-february-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-02-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-07-05T15:25:31+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-bala-murugan-vs-the-inspector-general-of-police-on-15-february-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-bala-murugan-vs-the-inspector-general-of-police-on-15-february-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"B. Bala Murugan vs The Inspector General Of Police on 15 February, 2006","datePublished":"2006-02-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-07-05T15:25:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-bala-murugan-vs-the-inspector-general-of-police-on-15-february-2006"},"wordCount":2339,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-bala-murugan-vs-the-inspector-general-of-police-on-15-february-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-bala-murugan-vs-the-inspector-general-of-police-on-15-february-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-bala-murugan-vs-the-inspector-general-of-police-on-15-february-2006","name":"B. Bala Murugan vs The Inspector General Of Police on 15 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-02-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-07-05T15:25:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-bala-murugan-vs-the-inspector-general-of-police-on-15-february-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-bala-murugan-vs-the-inspector-general-of-police-on-15-february-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-bala-murugan-vs-the-inspector-general-of-police-on-15-february-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"B. Bala Murugan vs The Inspector General Of Police on 15 February, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2108","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2108"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2108\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2108"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2108"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2108"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}